Content count

Joined

Last visited

About wz. As

Profile Information

Disgusted with herself at her rapid change of mood from shock to fear to elation, and disappointed that she had learned nothing since yesterday about managing her emotions, she resignedly went back to bed.

That's a very interesting analysis, SoT. Can I read more about it somewhere? Is it yours?
All I've seen about it in the US media (which isn't much — I pretty much just read the NY Times) is negative, which is not surprising. But your analysis makes sense. (In fact, how else could they finance all the western bonds they're buying? Borrowing from somewhere else? I don't know enough about global economics.)

The arbitrariness lies somewhere else. With history or linguistics or biology, you could say that the arbitrariness appears when you look at the world. The laws of the universe are fixed, but what happened in 1066 or which word we use to refer to a rose or which proteins take apart DNA are arbitrary in that the world might have happened differently. In math, the arbitrariness comes in setting up the rules of the game (contrast this with the fixed laws of nature), but once you have done that, everything that comes after necessarily follows from the rules you started with.
Alorael, it's interesting that you cite angles of a triangle adding up to 180 degrees as an example of the non-arbitrariness of math. There are models of geometry — spherical geometry, hyperbolic geometry — where the angles of a triangle add up to greater than or less than 180 degrees, respectively. Of course, once you define what your model is, every truth that follows is a necessary truth.

Do attacks of opportunity happen across height differences? You could make a custom terrain which offsets its graphic to make the turret look like it's at the same height as everything else, but isn't really.
Of course, then you can't have characters attack them hand-to-hand.

Sounds like a good system. Anonymity is now mandated for everyone (unless someone outs themselves — would that be discouraged under the rules?), which also removes preconceptions about playing style, etc. Some will still be recognizable through their writing style, but that probably can't be helped.

On a list of 8, let's say we know 3 on it and one that's not. That means you have to pick 5 names correctly, out of 9 roles (16 take away the 3 DLs, the 3 you already have, and the one you ruled out). That's 9 choose 5, so your chances of getting it right are 1 out of 126.
Actually your chances are a lot worse because they might have random roles on that list that aren't actually in play.

It seems that when attacking anyone whose role is uncertain, there's no downside to also specifying a location as the loyalist hideout, even if you don't know what it is. is this intentional?
I agree that dionicio's job is now appropriately hard.